Bull Moose Forum

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

Friday, May 21, 2004

The Diet Coke of Evil

You'll notice a new addition to the left hand bar. This site is now certified 59% Evil! I don't know what that translates into exactly. Maybe I kick puppies, but not too hard. The site in question uses the gematriculator, which involves the Bible and numerical values for words. So apparently you add up, divide, do a little dance and POOF! I'm wondering what pushed me past 50%. I'm betting calling Hastert a toadying pus-head helped...

And if I'm evil for telling the truth, then buy me a pitchfork! (now I bet it's 60%....)

Well, yet another poll came out...of course, Bush and Kerry are tied. I am underwhelmed by the news. If the Democrats had a half-decent candidate, this election would be a bloodbath. So explain how Bush can:

spend like Ted Kennedy

fuck up victory in Iraq

allow Rumsfeld to invalidate the Geneva Convention

threaten to amend the US Constitution with an Amendment that would LIMIT the rights of a minority

and a host of other things

and yet Kerry can only achieve a TIE??? Good Lord, is that possible?

The truth is that the two parties have, AGAIN, given us crap for candidates. Slaves to the extremist wings, they represent the needs and desires of the higher-ups in each party, not the average American. Just like the two parties have ceased to represent the avergage American.

In 2000 only 51.3% of voting age Americans cast ballots in the presidential election. There are almost an equal number of people who could vote, but haven't. I am willing to bet that a sizable number of these people don't vote because neither party offers them anything. We need a third party, an honest alternative to the two current parties that care only about perpetuating their power, not about making this country stronger.

Now, if only McCain and Lieberman would bolt the two groups and give us a real choice...

Despite Bush, Rumsfeld and Feith's apparent desire to screw up our mission in Iraq, our soldiers are still doing a lot of good there. Today's story focuses on the 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, who delivered supplies to a girls' school in Baghdad.

I said a number of months back that the Palestinians would gain a lot more in their negotiations with Israel if they'd stop the suicide bombings and engaged in peaceful protest. The reason: inevitably the Israelis would get physical with the protesters, and the Palestinians would reap the positive benefits from the international community.

Well, two days ago the Israelis fired near a group of women and kids engaged in a peaceful protest in Gaza, attempting to break up the protest. The result was close to 20 dead and double that wounded, many of them children.

Rightfully so, the US didn't block a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Israelis. This ranks with Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland and the massacre at Amritsar, India in the annals of peaceful protests ending in government gunfire.

Hopefully such a tragedy with show the Palestinians the folly of suicide bombing as a method for gaining freedom, and the Israelis will take a step back and rethink their current strategy. I fall, 99 out of 100 times, on Israel's side. But they did wrong here.

On the Hill yesterday, a pompous fat windbag who doubles as the Speaker of the House engaged in what he thought was some clever, witty banter. I'll just print the exchange between the reporter and this goofball:

"Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."

Hastert: "Who?"

Reporter: "John McCain."

Hastert: "Where's he from?"

Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."

Hastert: "A Republican?"(nervous laughter)

Reporter: "Anyway, his observation was never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes and his question was, 'Where's the sacrifice?' "

Hastert: "If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."

Who the fuck is Hastert to tell McCain what sacrifice is all about?? Hey Denny, I have two words for you: "Hanoi. Hilton." John McCain has earned the right, more than anyone else in the House or Senate, to speak about this war and the sacrifice we are, or aren't, engaging in. Also, McCain was asking where is OUR sacrifice, of the people and their leaders? He wasn't questioning the soldiers, as you implied so bitterly.

John McCain released a statement that, I think, shows not only how right McCain was to bring up the issue, but how much more class he possesses that the fat gasbag from Illinois:

"The Speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops. All we are called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party."

Amen and Hallelujah! That is why I quit the GOP last year. W and his boys haven't cut spending one dime, but have accelerated non-military spending at a reckless rate like Democrats on crank. Here we are in a WAR, and W is passing 500 billion dollar federal programs for Medicare. WHAT? That's insane! As insane as LBJ's "guns and butter" spending during Vietnam. And the fiscal results...well, does anyone fondly remember the economy in the 70s?

In my dreams, I see McCain and Lieberman bolting their parties and forming a third party that preaches some fucking common sense. In reality, the government is run by toadying pus-heads like Hastert. Jesus wept.

I have stated numerous times that I support the right for gays and lesbians to enjoy the same right to marry the rest of us in society can exercise. Rather than comment about it further, I point you to Boston Globe columnist Brian McGrory, who has written a nice piece of satire and sums up the anti-forces foolishness quite nicely.

Monday, May 17, 2004

The story you won't hear

In the press you'll hear about the IGC head being assassinated. You'll see the photos of Abu Ghraib. You'll hear and see quotes from "demoralized soldiers" questioning our involvement in Iraq. Won't you won't see are the stories about the reconstruction of Iraq. Of electricity and water being restored. Of the marshland in southern Iraq being re-established after Hussein drained it and killed or forcibly removed the people who lived there. And you won't hear about the brave soldiers over there risking life and limb, serving our nation. Soldiers like Marine Captain Brian Chontosh.

I've gone on record saying Rumsfeld is doing a horrendous job in prosecuting this war, which makes what our soldiers are accomplishing all the more impressive. But what is more glaring is the media's utter lack of coverage of positive stories from Iraq. Capt. Chontosh is representative of what our fighting men and women are all about. They deserve recognition as well.

Captain, thank you for keeping myself, my family and our country safe.

Powell demanded to be put back on camera, told Miller to "get out of the way" and apologized to Russert for the problem. He then answered the final question.

Now, this doesn't sound like such a big deal, does it? Except for one problem: the question Russert was about to ask dealt with the White House Counsel memo regarding the questioning of prisoners and calling into question provisions in the Geneva Convention.

As a result, the media is claiming that Ms. Miller didn't want Powell answering the question, or some other equally sinister plan was afoot.

I'll admit, when I first saw it I was upset. But read the transcript and, amazingly, the NYT story on this issue. The Times story in particular because it simultaneously tries to make a big deal about it and gives the quotes that prove it isn't.

Russert made somewhat of a stink about this, but that is to be expected. Journalists are very sensitive about interviews and, to be honest, it looked bad. He said (in the NYT):

"I've been doing this program for 13 years and nothing like that has ever happened. I remember sometimes in countries around the world this happens, but not in America. This is a free press, and political figures can always say `I don't want to answer.' " He said he did not know if it was the content of the question that caused Ms. Miller's reaction or simply that the interview had gone over its allotted time.

Now, it couldn't have been the question's content b/c the camera panned away before Russert got to the meat of the question. Most likely, there was a schedule, and Ms. Miller decided on her own to enforce that schedule. So before the last question got asked, she began shutting the feed down. Powell immediately corrected her, and hopefully tore her a new one once they were off the air.

This is much ado about nothing...however, it isn't surprising. This administration has had an adversarial relationship with the press for a while. It also doesn't like to give out a lot of information. And that's fine; they can run the day-to-day workings of the White House as they see fit. But you have to accept the consequences of those decisions. The media is cutting GWB zero slack, so of course this is going to make the news, esp. with the last question being what it was.

The lesson here is simple: deputy press secretaries should stay away from the f***ing cameras until their boss tells them otherwise. The consequences are obvious.

Sarin gas...wait, that's a WMD!!

So today in Iraq, besides the head of the IGC getting toasted, coalition forces found an artillery shell on the side of the road wired as an impromptu explosive device. Inside the shell was...sarin gas.

Really? How did that get there? There isn't supposed to be ANY WMD in Iraq at all.

Now, one shell does not a weapons program make. But it is also ridiculous to assume that only one shell exists. Where did it come from? Is there a hidden cache in Iraq? Or does this lend more credence to the belief that Hussein gave away or shipped out most of his chemical and bio weapons before the invasion last year, and now some of it is being smuggled back in? Who knows, but don't think this will be the last time that a chem/bio agent is used by the remnant thugs of Hussein.